Are players like Wilt, Mikan and Russell overrated?

[Camarosuper6]

I know the topic may have been discussed before, but I really get into it with people who put these players in a certain untouchable reverance when speaking about the great players in NBA history.

This is what I wrote on another thread in here...

"Not to change the topic but I have always thought that Russell and Wilt were overdramatized by the league and the media. Not to take anything away from their accomplishments, because they are both loaded with them, but because of the era in which they played, I dont feel they would have accomplished anything REMOTELY similar in today's game.

Averaging over 20 rebounds a game? No
Averaging over 50 points a game? No
Being as dominant as when the league was new and the athleticism was more scarce... No.

And thats my main issue with their rankings, is that the league was not even a shade of as athletic during most of their careers as it is today. There just wasnt the same atmosphere, and while they may indeed be great players or superstars in todays era, they would not be the dominant figures they were in their respective playing time."

Now, I really want it to be understood that I have nothing against these players, and I fully understand what they did.

But IMO compared to many of the greats in todays era and the past 25years, they would not have accomplished the same feats.

I mean seriously.. DRob against Mikan? Thats a kill.
Russell was a great defender, but he wouldnt have gotten 22 rebounds a game against Hakeem and Shaq.

Wilt was a genetic freak and a phenom, but he wouldnt dominate the game any better today than MJ did during the 90's.

Am I wrong?

Please debate...

[bo spur]

Well lets face it, these guys were dominating when the majority of the league was non athletic guys who were still shooting with two hands instead of one, and playing against guys who were much shorter then they were and no 3 seconds in the lane. They could literally just get in front of the basket and dominate with rebounds or easy uncontested baskets.

But you also have to give them credit for changing the way the game is played, and for coming up with moves and techniques that are still being used today. I don't see Kobe coming up with any new stuff, just trying to copy Dr.J, Jordan, and others while getting bailed out by the refs constantly.

[Uwe Blab]

Well, things are relative. They changed the game and dominated when they played. They can't be faulted for something that was out of their control. But I think a legitimate ranking process will consider all those things. That's why it is usually Jordan who is considered the greatest player ever. If you went strictly by numbers, Jordan never averaged 50ppg, 20 something rebounds and scored 100pts in a game, Wilt would be considered the greatest player ever if that were the case.

And we can't take away from Kobe just because we hate him. He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game. He isn't Jordan, but he is nearly unstoppable when he sets his mind to it. It's not about coming up with new tricks, its about being the best for a long period of time.

[Jose_TheGenius]

different era, they dominated their time. if Shaq was playing against Kareem (both in their prime), Shaq would dominate him. 20-30 years from now, the game's gonna change and the players are gonna be playing differently

[Flipmode Master]

Just goes with the times..doesn't make anyone overrated..they cant help they were physically better at the time.

[SleepyAdamII]

what they don't have in superior athletic talent, they have the best fundamentals and heart.

Someone like Amare may have better athletic skills, but he doesn't have near the acumen Russell or Wilt or Mikan had. You could bring in the 2007 celtics and the 1969 celtics, and the Russell team would win every game. They had the minds, and hearts to beat anybody. Their skill will always trump uber athleticism with the ego mania and street skill the players have today.

[Camarosuper6]

Im not trying to blame them for what they cannot control, but when discussing the absolute best players of all time, they seem to have an untouchable, unbeatable stigma attached, and maybe thats what irritates me...

[TheLadiesMike]

Let's not forget that those guys also had some disadvantages that today's players didn't have:

1. The pre-expansion era - the league was much smaller, which meant only the best made it into the game, rather than the talent pool being diluted.

2. Sports and nutrition science - while we criticize players for being less athletic, keep in mind we knew less about the body and fitness, and what needed to be done to maximize athleticism. Look at how thin guys like Russell and Gervin and Kareem were, even Shaq early in his career. We also knew less about treating and recovering from injuries.

3. Fundamentals - maybe they weren't guarding guys that had 40 inch verticals but they were playing against guys that had solid fundamentals and could shoot and played hard.

4. Luxuries - players back in the day made way less money, didn't have team charters and would take trains and buses, back-to-back-to-back games, etc.

It was a different era. Not better or worse, just different.

[SleepyAdamII]

To answer this question you have to ask yourself what makes one NBA player better than another.

On a micro level, what seperates two shooting guards, who wear the number 20 and are from Argentina? one right handed and one left handed.... heart and acumen.

There is a reason Manu is Manu and Carlos Delfino isn't. There is a reason Michael was better than the likes of Clyde, Domonique, Penny, and the rest.

Physically these guys are about the same, but the heart and mind for the game separates them.

So guys like Mikan, and Wilt and Russell, maybe they come into todays league and average 25/14 and we don't think much of them statistically, but in their day there were guys as athletic as them were (nate thurmond)and yet they still dominated and won because they had hearts and minds of champions.

so even if you forgive the inflated stats, they will still be the best all time because they had unquestionable basketball acumen and heart.

[mckennaspur1]

Mikan may not be as significant in rankings now as he was in his day, but Wilt and Russell would easiuly have stood the test of time.

Russell was one of the smartest players who ever laced up a pari of sneakers. He had all the skills in the world, but he simply knew the game better than anybody (...just ask him...). Forget the individual statistics...look at how many rings he won.

Wilt was simply incomparable. Guys like MJ and Kobe (n knock on either) eventually get a free pass from the officials once their reputations get embedded. On the other hand, league officials consistently created rules to make life harder for Wilt (e.g., widening the painted area). He absorbed every rule change and still dominated.

[JTD]

Russell played on some great teams! he was a rebound and defensive machine in his day!

[bo spur]

And we can't take away from Kobe just because we hate him. He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game. He isn't Jordan, but he is nearly unstoppable when he sets his mind to it. It's not about coming up with new tricks, its about being the best for a long period of time.

The biggest difference between Kobe and the other greats is team mates. Magic, Duncan, Bird, Jordan, Russell, thier team mates gushed about them and loved playing with them, probably even loved them like brothers. Kobe's team mates don't have that same feeling, in fact alot of ex team mates can't stand him, and that says alot when your talking about a team sport. He has to be the only guy who could get away with totally bashing his team, demanding a trade, only to have Stern and West come up with a plan to get Pau for thier worst player, and then go on to win the MVP..........what a joke. Chemistry is an important part of a team, maybe even the most important as far as getting the most out of a group of guys, Kobe's teams have never had that, especially since Shaq left. Kobe is a spoiled selfish player that took 10+ years and a bogus trade for him to realize he has to make his team mates better to have a great team. He is talented, but even young players like LeBron have come into the game as much better team mates, and much better team players, as well as having the talent to go with it.

Iverson, and Marbury to me are very similar players to Bryant, only they never had a Shaq to ride his coat tails. Nobody ever talks about them being the best of the best.

[shelshor]

On the other hand how many of today's players would be able to hold down REAL jobs in the off season, and in some cases DURING the season just to put food on the table?
And just how athletic would they be while holding down those jobs and being unable to devote themselves to full time training regimens?

[maldoror]

Originally Posted by bo spur

Iverson, and Marbury to me are very similar players to Bryant, only they never had a Shaq to ride his coat tails. Nobody ever talks about them being the best of the best.

You are comparing Kobe to Marbury? This is pure swill.

Your hate has clearly overtaken your common sense. Kobe will go down as a top 10 player all-time when he is done.

11 time All-star
11 time All-NBA
9 time All-defensive team

....and counting

Marbury:

2 time All-star
2 time All-NBA
0 time All-defensive team

and he's done.

[maldoror]

Originally Posted by bo spur

The biggest difference between Kobe and the other greats is team mates. Magic, Duncan, Bird, Jordan, Russell, thier team mates gushed about them and loved playing with them, probably even loved them like brothers.

^^^^^^^MYTH

Jordan was an a-hole.

Yeah Jordan's teammates absolutely LOVED him....

MJ in action:

"I'll let them stand up and take responsibility for themselves."

"They've got no idea what it's all about. The white guys, they work hard, but they don't have the talent. And the rest of them? Who knows what to expect? They're not good for much of anything."

"We have to do some things. We need to make some changes."

"...I call them 'the Looney Tunes.' Physically, they were the best. Mentally, they weren't even close."

"He's scared. He's got no heart...Nobody told me that. If I had spoken up, he wouldn't have been here."

"I know I can recognize what to do, but I'm not sure they can."

"It's a hell of a lot easier to make Earl Monroe look good than it is Brad Sellers."

"I hope there's a jumpshot in there." - Michael to Stacey King who was walking into the locker room with a box

"They don't need a ticket to watch you sitting on the bench. They can go to your house for that." - Michael to Charles Davis who was sorting through his tickets for his family and friends

"Give me the ******* ball." - Michael to Doug Collins who drew up a play for Dave Corzine

"I hate when I have to read that in the papers the next day, that I couldn't do something. It wasn't my fault."

"You're an idiot. You've screwed up every play we ever ran. You're too stupid to even remember the plays. We ought to get rid of you." - Michael to Horace Grant

"I hate being out there with those garbagemen. They don't get you the ball."

"If you [pass the ball to Bill Cartwright], you'll never get the ball from me."

"We're not winning because of talent. We're just beating bad teams."

"Headache tonight, Scottie?" - Michael asks Scottie, while showing him his 2-for-16 line

"It's probably a twelve-day. He needs two days to wake up." - Michael on a ten-day contract teammate

"Five more years and I'm out of here. I'm marking these days on a calendar, like I'm in jail. I'm tired of being used by this organization, by the league, by the writers, by everyone."

"They're not interested in winning. They just want to sell tickets, which they can do because of me. They won't make any deals to make us better. And this Kukoc thing. I hate that. They're spending all their time chasing this guy."

"If I were a general manager, we'd be a better team."

"He can't do anything with the ball. Don't give it to him." - Michael yelling at Paxson who passed the ball to Perdue

"We're beating a lot of poor teams. So what? We won a lot of games last year, too. Will Horace and Bill still be playing at this level in the playoffs...Can Pip keep it up?"

"I know what's gonna happen. We'll wait until the last minute and then they'll say something like they couldn't get a deal done because of the cap or somebody pulled out at the last minute. It happens here all the time. I don't know why I'm surprised every year."

"You ever hear of a guy, six-eleven maybe and two hundred sixty pounds, a guy big and fat like that and he can't get but two rebounds, if that many, running all over the damn court and he gets two rebounds? Big guy like that and he gets one rebound. Can't even stick his ass into people and get more than that...Big, fat, fat guy. One rebound in three games. Power forward. Maybe they should call it powerless forward." - Michael ripping Stacey King a new one

"He was scared in there and panicking. He just lost it when Stockton scored." - Michael on B.J. Armstrong's mental fragility

"Will Vanderbilt. He doesn't deserve to be named after a Big Ten school." - Michael on Will Perdue

"I want to prove the critics wrong...I want to see some serious moves from management, which I really haven't seen that much of yet, and I want to see more serious attitudes from my teammates this year when it comes to the playoffs. In the past, it's been more or less a joking thing, sort of a 'Well, we're here, so let's have a good time.'"

"I'm sure everything will be fine if we win, but if we start losing, I'm shooting."

"I know what I would do if I were coach. I'd determine our strengths and weaknesses and utilize them. And it's pretty clear what our strength is."

"Your boy doesn't want to play. I'm tired of bailing his ass out." - Michael yelling at Jim Cleamons about Dennis Hopson

"I don't know about trading a 24 year-old guy for a 34 year-old guy." - Michael questioning the Oakley trade

"He's causing me too many turnovers." - Michael on Cartwright's inability to catch

"Why the hell don't you ever set a pick like that in a game?" - Michael yelling at Perdue after also hitting Perdue upside his head (led to the institution of the private curtain for practices)

[Big-POST-Bob]

Bill Russell is not and will never be overrated. what the guy did both on and off the court is nothing short of miraculous.

[theinswes]

i don't think wilt or russel are overrated by any means. mikan isn't considered the greatest center of all time because most ppl rank hakeem, cap, shaq, david, all above mikan. but honestly, it becomes harder to justify that shaq/hakeem is greater than wilt/russell, and i don't see how they'd be overrated.

wilt and russell deserve to be recognized as a top 10 all time the same way magic, bird, and tim are. the only guy i'd argue is 'untoucable' so far is jordan's position as the g.o.a.t.

and one more thing about russell, let's not underestimate the difficulty in performing when you're playing as one of the few black players in an era when you're treated completely different from guys today.

[maldoror]

Originally Posted by bo spur

Iverson, and Marbury to me are very similar players to Bryant, only they never had a Shaq to ride his coat tails. Nobody ever talks about them being the best of the best.

That's probably because they are not in the picture.

John Lucas played against Magic, Jordan, Bird, Kareem and says:

“I don't know if there has ever been a better player fundamentally than Kobe Bryant.”

HoopsHype.com NBA Blogs - NBA Videos

[maddog]

Originally Posted by TheLadiesMike

Let's not forget that those guys also had some disadvantages that today's players didn't have:

1. The pre-expansion era - the league was much smaller, which meant only the best made it into the game, rather than the talent pool being diluted.

2. Sports and nutrition science - while we criticize players for being less athletic, keep in mind we knew less about the body and fitness, and what needed to be done to maximize athleticism. Look at how thin guys like Russell and Gervin and Kareem were, even Shaq early in his career. We also knew less about treating and recovering from injuries.

3. Fundamentals - maybe they weren't guarding guys that had 40 inch verticals but they were playing against guys that had solid fundamentals and could shoot and played hard.

4. Luxuries - players back in the day made way less money, didn't have team charters and would take trains and buses, back-to-back-to-back games, etc.

It was a different era. Not better or worse, just different.

some myths here that might not be true
1 expansion dilution
I saw an article on this, probably not true.
Roughly here is what I remember
In 67/68 there was 1 team per 2 million males aged 20-30 in the US.
currently it is 1 per 1 million. However, prior to the 70s most players came from the northeast example- Texas 35 players in the NBA from Texas high Schools this season, 1950 to 1980 31 the population has only doubled since the 60s in Texas so that doesn't account for it. Add in the new source of players from Europe and probably no dilution as the pool for players has increased significantly.
2 better fundementals- I would say no. The only objective measure FT% has improved over time. Watch a game from the 60s and you will see a lot of clanged shots-all world point guards (like the Logo) who had trouble dribbibling with their non-dominant hand.
Passing has improved dramaticly.

[bo spur]

You are comparing Kobe to Marbury? This is pure swill.

Not that Marbury and Iverson are as talented as Kobe is, but that they are selfish players who don't make thier team mates better. And Iverson has done as much as Kobe has as a leader of his team, he took an even crappier team then Kobe has to the finals as well.